Brute Force Marketing
You don't get to be a market maker without first being a market manipulator. Some of the largest and most successful Internet companies have profited heavily from what they define as spam by their own standards. People have been gaming systems for personal gain since the birth of humanity. St. Augustine said "The purpose of all wars, is peace". The current war in Iraq is failing so badly because of poor branding and marketing that made peace look like an afterthought.
Don't be evil is one of Google's overused mottos. When you look online the battles being fought by Google are often marketed as though they are the good guys. It is easy to dislike AT&T after reading this comment
We would repeat that Google should put up or shut up; they can bid and enter the wireless market with any business model they prefer, then let consumers decide which model they like best.
Compare that to Google's take on this issue
For now, and for all of us, the issue is simple: this is one of the best opportunities we will have to bring the Internet to all Americans. Let's seize that opportunity.
If Google does not like your business model they will ban you without warning or saying why, but they are so good at packaging their marketing messages that people believe Google cares about them. Google uses brute force marketing while appearing otherwise while executives at competing companies are stupid enough to say what they are thinking.
If you use brute force marketing people will most likely hate you, and it will be hard to move your brand beyond that hate. If you rely on marketing that touches other's wants, dreams, hopes, egos, identities, etc. it is far easier to see your idea spread without being called a spammer or destroying your brand before you built it.
Comments
They are indeed backed by self-interest, however, I would much rather get free wireless access in exchange for putting up with some obnoxious ads. You see, Google is always trying to significantly give more to the consumer compared to other companies (cause they have the money and interest).
It is not merely branding and PR. I imagine that Google might even put me out of business one day--but offer something superior for less.
Go-ooooooooooooo Google !
That is well said.. Just by giving out two comments by two leads in the market you have illustrated how to show yourselves to public..! and eh..! you mean to say google is using that brute force strategy without us knowing what is happening?
BTW: I like the post 101 ways to link building(saw that this day only)
It is not called brute force marketing, its called relationship marketing. Its about listening to the customers and act fast upon the result. Its about having a modern structure of the company (witch atnt dosnt have).
I'd agree with bbjörn. Just handling your PR and engaging people is relationship marketing. I couldn't literally go and spam 2,000,000 people, even if I wrote the e-mail to make it sound as if I was helping them fufill their wishes.
That's what spammers do anyway! Work from home, make $$!! Kind of like selling an e-book!
Isn't it funny how you can take the same piece of information and package it to sound so different. At the end both AT&T and Google are motivated by self interest. Yet the way the express that interest is quite different. The fact that AT&t has been around for so long, there is definitely a lot of arrogance in the way they deal with things.
One better than Google is Apple's playing both sides of the coin with their MAC/PC commercials that cast Microsoft as the brute and them selfs as the easy going peace makers. A masterpiece in negative marketing.
This is a classic example of what George Lakoff calls "framing." Essentially, it's a way of controlling the discourse by positioning the message to appeal to the fundamental worldview held by a large part of the target population.
Google knows that people have a fundamental mistrust of big corporations, particularly in the telecommunications industry. Google, like Apple did in its 1984 ad, is positioning itself as a savior of the "little guy." Of course, Google is just another big corporation, but with their superior market position and their lack of a long-term history and negative mythology (contrasted with AT&T) they are able to frame the discussion however they want.
Nothing wrong with AT@T comments. There are 2 sides to the coin. They have openly challenged google to just "Bring it". I love the fact they call you out. Google had a good solid response. Nothing wrong with either and esepcially no reason to dislike At@t.
From my perspective, Google bullied AT&T and AT&T looked less likable in the process. Great marketing by Google.
The implications of Google's shrewed and subtly devicive marketing tactics extend well beyond mere marketing.
Here's where brand perception is altered, and overall, Google's brand is the happy recipient of this well-worded maneuvering.
Additionally, following Google around and skimming over their press releases, as well as the comments highlighted in this great article, offers up some good pointers for people hoping to manage their personal brand effectively and consistently...
Add new comment